Mad Scientist of the Week: Archimedes

The image of the wild-haired mad scientist toiling over arcane instruments and crackling electrical devices is an all too familiar one in popular culture, but that image, of the genius, unrestrained by social conventions and balanced upon the cutting edge of science and sanity has frequently been inspired by real scientists.

In recognition of the work and sacrifices of these scientific trailblazers, I would like to begin what I hope will be a continuing series of Mad Scientist of the Weeks, and why not start with a man frequently credited as being the father of science, Archimedes. After all, what would a mad scientist be without the ubiquitous catch-phrase, “Eureka!”

King Hiero II of Syracuse, had been given a golden crown in the shape of a laurel wreath. There was some suspicion that the gold smith had not used all of the gold that he had been given for the crown, but had substituted silver for some of it and pocketed the difference. The problem was that no one could come up with a way to tell that would not damage the crown itself. Archimedes was given the task, and was reportedly inspired by the sight of bath water overflowing the tub when he got into it. He realized that objects displace an amount of water when submerged equal to their volume. This gave him a way to determine the composition of the crown by measuring its density and comparing that to the density of a similar volume of pure gold. At this point, Archimedes is said to have leapt from the bath, and run through the streets naked and dripping wet, shouting, “I have found it!” The Greek word for which is eureka.

All right, that’s an amusing story, about a great scientific discovery, but it doesn’t quite rise to level of the mad scientist. For those that need real proof of Achimedes’ mad scientist cred, we have to examine the siege of Syracuse. In 214 B.C. the Romans tried to invade Syracuse on the Island of Sicily. They didn’t count on creative genius that Archimedes had for building defensive weaponry. In addition to greatly improving the range and accuracy of conventional catapults, he also developed what must have been one of the most frightening super weapons of the day, a weapon that instilled fear among the invaders and caused historians to dub it the Claw of Archimedes. It was a giant lever that used grappling hooks to snare approaching ships, and then hauled them out of the water, shaking them to bits and dashing their crews upon the nearby rocks.

If that’s not “mad scientist” enough for you, then how about the persistent rumors that Archimedes used polished shields to focus sunlight on the incoming ships and set them ablaze, effectively creating the world’s first death ray. These claims were first made by the 2nd Century A.D. historian Lucian, and have been debated by everyone from Rene Descartes to students at M.I.T. Attempts to recreate the devise have met with mixed results, but between that and his documented discoveries in mathematics and engineering, Archimedes certainly deserves the award Mad Scientist of the Week.

Science vs. Religion

I’m a biology teacher, and regularly teach about and discuss evolution in the classroom. This frequently gives rise to religious discussions and/or arguments. I have had students tell me, “I don’t believe in evolution. I believe in the Bible.” For them, belief in one precludes belief in the other. This is not dissimilar to scientists who portray religion as little more than superstition, and hold that science and religion are mutually exclusive. If you believe in one, must you automatically disbelieve the other? Is it possible to believe in both?

As much as I dislike sports analogies, let’s think, for the moment, of the differences between science and religion as being similar to the differences between baseball and football. These are two very different games. They have different rules. They place different demands upon the players, and, with a few notable exceptions, individuals who are good enough to play professionally in one do not play professionally in the other.

At the same time, there is no shortage of people who are fans of both. Many individuals are able to happily cheer for both their favorite baseball and football teams, even when the two seasons briefly overlap. Attending a game in one, even being a season ticket holder, does not force you to renounce going to games of the other.

Similarly, science and religion are two very different games, with very different rules. One is based upon belief. The other is based upon doubt. One demands constant revision and documented, reproducible evidence. The other relies upon sacred texts and/or abstract epiphanies of the individual. Again, with a few notable exceptions, individuals who are good enough to play professionally in one do not play professionally in the other.

That does not mean, however, that there are not individuals who are fans of both. Each has its own set of rules, and each provides something different to the individual and to society. Contrary to the pronouncements of authorities in both, they are not mutually exclusive, nor are they, or should they be, in competition with each other. Studying and striving to understand the laws that allow the universe to function does not diminish the wonder of creation. Studying and striving to understand creation and our role within it does not diminish the capacity of the mind. In the words of Einstein, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Can We Afford Science?

Many in the scientific community are still basking in the euphoria of the post election glow, and as much as I hate throwing them into the cold shower of reality, we have some important questions to address. The economy is heading south, joblessness is rising, people are losing their homes, and the government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the financial industry. How do we convince a public staring those cold facts in the face that funding science is important?

Part of the problem is that most people feel disconnected from science. They view science as an abstraction that’s carried out by egg-headed scientists in far away labs. This view has been fostered by politicians and pundits who have a vested interest in promoting anti-intellectualism. They have literally made careers of playing upon the public’s distrust of science and reluctance to spend their hard earned tax dollars on it.

The best way to combat this is to show people that science is concrete, that it has practical uses, that it not only affects their daily lives, but is essential to them. A perfect example of this is CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. For those who are unfamiliar with it ( http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ ), this is biggest experiment in history, requiring the largest machine ever built. It is a super collider that is 27 miles in circumference. It is so big that it straddles the border between France and Switzerland, and employs scientists from all over the world. This monumental project is designed to take protons and accelerate them to 99.999999% of the speed of light and smash them into similar protons moving in the opposite direction. The purpose is to recreate the conditions of the Big Bang, in order to better understand the nature of matter that makes up the universe.

“Ho, hum. Why should we spend money on that?” This is the reaction of most people when you talk about something like this. Until you point out to them that, in order to allow all of the scientists working on this to communicate with each other, they had to invent a little thing called the World Wide Web. That ubiquitous part of our daily lives, that allows us to shop, keep in touch with our friends and family, research any topic at any time of the day or night, and even read blogs like this, was simply a spin off of the LHC.

While we’re at it, let’s mention that the personal computer that you are reading this on would have never existed without NASA’s manned space exploration program. It was the need to make computers small enough to fit into a spacecraft that led to computer chips that run everything from our cell phones to our cars, home appliances, iPods, BlackBerries, GPS and countless other things that make the modern world possible.

If we can point out things like this, then perhaps scientific funding will be viewed, less as dumping money down an academic black hole, and more as investing in the future.

So, What Makes a Scientist Mad?

Well, for starters, let’s talk about a society that is, compared to the rest of the world, not only largely ignorant of science, but perversely proud of its ingnorance. Large percentages of the American public, including a distressing number of political candidates, do not believe in evolution. Many, however, believe that there is still a scientific debate about whether or not Global Climate Change is happening, and if human activity is contributing to it. Legitimate stem cell research has been stalled for almost a decade, alternative energy research is chronically underfunded, and until fairly recently, manned exploration of space was considered a quaint joke.

Some of that may change with a new administration in Washington, but many of the underlying causes remain. I am a high school science teacher. I am frequently disheartened by students who not only know little about science, but consider the entire subject to be nothing more than a set of static facts, written down by dead white men, that they, the students, must memorize, not to get any understanding of or try to influence the universe around them, but simply to pass a standardized test.

Even as I write this, real scientists are striving to literally unlock the mysteries of the universe. Particle physicists are conducting the largest experiment in history at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN to discover the subatomic particles that will give us a better understanding of matter and energy. Geneticists, having decoded the human genome, are now endeavoring to use that knowledge to fight previously incurable diseases, retard the aging process and offer new hope to those with disabilities. Nanotechnologists are feverishly working to manipulate materials at the atomic level, producing new materials and new processes that offer to revolutionize modern life. And yet, all of these wonders combined get less press coverage than Brittany Spears.

Let me hasten to add, however, that I am a mad scientist, but not a hopeless one. If you and I can instill some of our love of science, if we can convince others that it is pivotal to understanding how the world works and to improving the lives of people all over that world, if we can advocate for better and more comprehensive science education and funding, then you and I may have a chance of changing the world for the better. If you agree with me, then please send your comments and ideas. If you disagree with me, then please tell me how and why I am insane. You won’t be the first.